Demonstrably untrue. Part of the reason the left hates John Bolton so much is that he was the guy who went to the U.N. and told them where they could shove a request that the United States disarm civilians by confiscating privately owned "small arms."

The U.N. actually sent a representative to England to debate Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, for Pete's sake. Who told you they don't have an anti-gun agenda? It's not like they hide it.

Maybe these things did happen, but getting rid of privately owned small arms in the US really, really isn't big on the UN's list of priorities. It's probably more of a political drama than anything substantive. Like I said, the real issue of disarmament has to do with proliferation of conflict. Since the US isn't torn by civil wars, it's very much beside the point.

I'll be glad to take your word for your intentions, but that's not what the U.N. says about its intentions, so I won't be relaxing just yet. You are contradicting the explicit pronouncements of the actual, official representatives of the U.N. and telling me they don't really mean it when they pressure the U.S. government to infringe my right to keep and bear arms. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just saying that when someone tells me he wants to steal my property, I'd be a fool not to take him at his word. Frankly, I couldn't care less where this issue ranks on the list of the U.N.'s priorities. I'm sure they do have more important things to do, like pretending to keep the peace in violent areas and explaining why the Israelis are Jewish Nazis--and skimming fortunes off aid shipments gets harder every year, so that's got to be keeping them busy.
However, no way does that mean these people aren't working to do exactly what they say they want to do, which, in their own words, is to control and if possible eliminate all commerce in weapons everywhere in the world, including in the U.S. Screw them.

Maybe these things did happen, but getting rid of privately owned small arms in the US really, really isn't big on the UN's list of priorities.

Not in the U.S., but worldwide. The U.S. is merely the biggest obstacle. They could do it in a lot of other nations without us, but they want us on board if possible to put a stamp of legitimacy on the whole thing.

I'll be glad to take your word for your intentions, but that's not what the U.N. says about its intentions, so I won't be relaxing just yet. You are contradicting the explicit pronouncements of the actual, official representatives of the U.N. and telling me they don't really mean it when they pressure the U.S. government to infringe my right to keep and bear arms. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just saying that when someone tells me he wants to steal my property, I'd be a fool not to take him at his word. Frankly, I couldn't care less where this issue ranks on the list of the U.N.'s priorities. I'm sure they do have more important things to do, like pretending to keep the peace in violent areas and explaining why the Israelis are Jewish Nazis--and skimming fortunes off aid shipments gets harder every year, so that's got to be keeping them busy.
However, no way does that mean these people aren't working to do exactly what they say they want to do, which, in their own words, is to control and if possible eliminate all commerce in weapons everywhere in the world, including in the U.S. Screw them.

Not in the U.S., but worldwide. The U.S. is merely the biggest obstacle. They could do it in a lot of other nations without us, but they want us on board if possible to put a stamp of legitimacy on the whole thing.

Don't let your dislike for the UN make you blind to the problems that the UN actually deals with. It's not just there to take your money and laugh at you, you know.

Anyway, like I said, it's highly unlikely that a UN mandate, even if arrived at, would actually be followed through if it involved removing small arms from the US. That really, really, really isn't the *real* reason for disarmament. People might talk about it, yes, but do you seriously think that the various representatives both think that it could be done and think that of all the countries in the world the US has the worst consequences of small arms proliferation?

Look at what their priorities are. Disarmament of nuclear arms. Disarmament of land mines, which can destroy agricultural lands in developing countries for generations.

You simply are not in touch with the priorities of the UN, choosing instead to believe that some weird tangential thing that was brought up in first world countries is somehow overshadowing the much more massive issues of things like *landmines*, which are causing huge problems in the developing world this very day.